New Age Bible Versions Part 1

The Bible and its various translations is a topic that never ceases to fascinate me. I have many of the major new translations in my collection, including the NASB, NIV, NLT, and NKJV. I love to contrast and compare verses in each of them.

I’ve always loved the King James Version for its beauty and majesty. The KJV has been the sole translation used in our churches for hundreds of years. Throughout our country’s history, our children were taught the alphabet and reading with the King James version of the Bible. Our founding fathers used it as a guide when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

That situation began changing in the last half of the 20th century when new Bible versions multiplied exponentially and our pastors started using them to teach from the pulpit. There are now over 150 translations in English and still counting. It makes a person wonder why so many are needed.

All these new versions have one thing in common -- they all use the same manuscript texts as their translation source (a version compiled by Westcott and Hort from the Sinaiticus text) as opposed to the Textus Receptus (Received Text) used by the translators of the KJV. It always seemed odd to me that every single new version uses the Sinaiticus text which has numerous omissions and alterations.

Now I’ve come across a book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS by G. A. Riplinger that has given me an entirely new perspective and much food for thought on this whole issue.

I was never a fan of the KJV only crowd who insist the KJV is the only version that should be used by Christians. And yet, Riplinger’s book works to show that these new versions are systematically and very subtly steering Christianity toward the New Age movement’s New World Order.

The author says her research yielded these fascinating discoveries...

1) The New Age movement has long expressed a goal of infiltrating the evangelical church and with the help of modern translators is gradually changing the Bible to conform to a one world religion.

2) The editors of these new versions hold beliefs that are not necessarily Biblical -- which helps to explain why they’re comfortable using a manuscript version that was altered by a known spiritualist (Westcott) as the source of their translations. As the author points out, the NIV’s chief editor doesn’t believe that in order to be born again, man must first accept Jesus as savior. Another of the NIV’s translators is a lesbian. And the progenitor of the NASB version has been called ‘the mediator between East and West’ and was instrumental in working toward an East-West synthesis. He referred to his alternations of the articles of faith saying 'the changes thus far... are in the right direction... and should contain the germs of a new theology.'

3) The new versions are often more difficult to read than the KJV because they use many more words to explain a concept and they often use more difficult words when a simple one will do. The KJV may seem like a tough read, but it’s actually on the opposite end of the spectrum from Shakespeare in that it uses a vocabulary of about 8,000 words in contrast to Shakespeare’s enormous vocabulary.

4) The ‘new’ Christianity which is emerging from these versions substitutes ‘riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation.’ Could this be why so many churches are becoming more and more ‘liberal’ in their thinking and teaching, so much so that the majority of Christians now believe there are many paths to heaven among other non-Biblical teachings and our younger generation has no problem with homosexual unions?

Ms Riplinger’s book certainly makes for interesting reading whether you agree with her conclusions or not. For one thing, it’s filled with charts of comparison verses. At first, I couldn’t believe these questionably translated verses were from the NIV or the NASB. But when I checked my Bibles, there they were in black and white. A quick example has the author wondering if you’re using a ‘holy’ Bible as she shows that the word ‘holy’ has been removed from the new versions in many places. Instead of ‘holy angels’ in Matthew 25:31, you have ‘angels in the NASB and the NIV. Instead of the ‘Holy Ghost’ in John 7:39, 1 Cor. 2:13, Matt. 12:31. Acts 6:3, and Acts 8:18, you have “Spirit’. Instead of ‘holy prophets and apostles’ in Rev. 18:20, you have ‘prophets and apostles’.

And that’s just for starters. I hope to share more on this topic next time...